Scorpion82It has also been stated that some aircraft were built for the Iraqis but never delivered following GW I. It is known that both Malaysia and India received some of these MiG’s (29SD/9.12SD) in the mid 90s. IIRC 10 went to India and 18 to Malaysia. The 34 MiG-29SMT/UBT slatted for Algeria and now being in service with the RuAF were all aircraft taken from these stocks, I think that the Yemeni aircraft were converted from the YAF’s inventory of MiG-29B previously delivered.
The new production line for the MiG-29M/K was ready in January 2003.
Scorpion82While the topic is at hand one thing. As I understand it KUB and M2 are the two seaters, correct? So how do the single seaters look today? Does MiG simply replace the back seat with some gear or are they still building both versions of cockpit+canopy?
They replace it with a 600 l tank to be correctly. The canopy is the same. You might google for Indian Navy+MiG-29K and will certainly find a few nice pictures.
Scorpion82@Sens,
you meant converting from the K/KUB not from the standard MiG-29 as it seems. This could be.
@Hotdog,
the original MiG-29K (9.31) was in fact based on the MiG-29M (9.15). Following the tests of the MiG-29M2 demonstrator it was decided to take the navalised twinseat variant (MiG-29KUB/9.47) as the base for a whole family of land and carrier based single and twin seat fighters. The reason for selected the navalised variant as the base was owed to the fact that the IN intended to buy the type, whereas there were no customers for the new Ms in sight. Commonality might be another reason that this path was chosen. The land based Ms will have smaller flaps, no wing folding mechanism, no tailhook, but a brakechute. Otherwise they will be very similar. The MiG-35 is basically a new MiG-29M with more advanced sensor specifically designed to meet the IAF’s MMRCA requirements, RSK MiG originally offered the MiG-29M1/M2 only.
Scorpion82@Corran,
the MiG-29M2 demonstrator was actually #154;) #156 was the later MiG-29OVT demonstrator.
Scorpion82If Syria in fact ordered MiG-29M1/M2 they will be new built, you can’t convert older MiG-29s to that standard.
Btw RSK MiG intended to rename the MiG-29K/KUB to MiG-33/33D (a designation previously used for the export variant of the original MiG-29M) but this was abandoned as the bureaucratic hurdle was to high.
Scorpion82Which I didn’t said, I just pointed out that the F35 will be available at the same time, possibly even before the EF might be ready to have real A2G capabilities, so why should they pay twice for the same capabilties if the F35 will be deploy in these roles, either alongside Tornados, or later as a replacement?
First deliveries may occur somewhat earlier, but that doesn’t mean that the F-35 is operational at that time or that all of the planned weapons are integrated. To have some redundancy is certainly not bad, it’s not even clear how many F-35s will be purchased or when deliveries will really start. Thus you are speculating here.
In an recent flightglobal article they confirmed that the US and French shows interest in integrating Brimstone to their fighters, while RAF has not. Which means, they are happy with it in use from Tornados and has no need to integrate it on EF anytime soon.
That’s a weird logic to say the least. The news is that the US and France have expressed their interest in the weapon, that doesn’t mean the UK won’t integrate it on any other fighter.
But to cut it short, what’s the discussion all about? The RAF wants to have these weapons on the Typhoon and there is no sign that this will change, period! These stupid “it’s redundant the Typhoon won’t get it brabbling” appears to be Rafale fan’s wishful thinking, that’s at least the impression I get here.
Scorpion82CFT comes with a performance penalty too, so i hope they can be taken on/off in a hearbeat, not to mention they might turn it into such a frickin fugly thing as the F-16IN….I had to take an extra look at the intake to make sure it was in fact an F-16 behind that junk.
They can be installed and removed prior a mission dependent on the mission requirements. It reportedly will take not much more than 1.5 h to do so, but that’s only what was claimed, up to date no CFTs have ever been fitted to the real aircraft. In comparison to large wing tanks the CFTs are certainly more efficient from an aerodynamic point of view, but they have some disadvantages in comparison to CFTs, such as higher weight and the fact that you can’t drop them unlike external tanks.
Scorpion82[
so no i doubt you can see the fan through the intakes. and here is the proof.
You can see parts of the compressor as on the Rafale, but a great portion of it is covered by the s-duct.
Scorpion82If the AESA is on a UK aircraft does that perhaps suggest that it is being used for development independent of Eurofighter marketing?
CAESAR was an industry funded demonstration programme and part of the government funded CECAR. The BAC 1-11 aircraft was also used for the original Captor testing and this aircraft is based in the UK. First CAESAR trials were carried out in the UK and latter trials were also conducted in Germany with the very same aircraft. Thus it has nothing to do with an independent development yet.
@TMor,
at a certain time there was a twist between the partner nations on the AESA front-end. The British pushed for the swashplate, while the Germans felt that a fixed antenna would be less risky and most likely lighter and cheaper as well. Captor-E will feature a swashplate, now often referred to as the repositioner, as was confirmed by the various press releases since July 2010 when the formal start of the Captor-E FSD was announced.
@Sancho78 & Kovy,
the Italians never planned to replace any strike/attack aircraft with the Typhoon, the F-35 is subsequently important to them, while they may not require to many fighters anymore. Cost constraints are certainly a reason and for the Italians it makes sense to trade the Typhoon for the F-35 if they must choose between the two. There are 96 Typhoons on order by the Italians, but the ItAF and ItN need aircraft to replace their AV-8B, Tornados and AMX.
In the UK’s case the situation is different as the Typhoon was ever meant to replace the Jaguar, while FOAS was meant to replace the Tornado GR.4 and the F-35 was meant to replace the Harrier. The FOAS as such doesn’t exist and requirements are likely to be spread among new platforms like the F-35, Typhoon and possible UCAVs in the future. The RAF just lost its Harriers and intends to retire its Tornado GR.4s earlier than planned. They subsequently need a platform capable to fill the gap rather quickly and the F-35 is not going to meet that requirement on time. The Typhoon must pose certain capabilities in a reasonable timeframe if the RAF don’t want to face further capability gaps or even give up some of them. As of now there is NO indication that the RAF will reject upgrading Typhoon’s AG capabilities, it’s in fact planned and it’s necessary. We don’t even know how many F-35 the RAF may end up with and when they will become available with the permanent delays and cost increases on the JSF, the Typhoon is currently a much safer bet to rely on and a much more predictable one as well.
Scorpion82IMO, the Captor-M’s already substantial performance allowed the IAF to give it some leeway in the delivery of the final AESA version which is also on aircraft already in the form of prototypes, while the RBE-2 AESA’s advanced delivery timeline & current progress convinced them it would be ready in time.
Note that even the Captor-E is offered in a conventional fixed version while the swashplate version is advertised (on Selex website) as future growth version. What probably (based on news reports etc) sunk the US fighters was not their sensor performance, but that their kinematic performance was not upto the task in places like Leh, Thar etc, which by itself is not a huge slam on both types. The F-16 has been around a long time & the Super Hornet is a naval fighter designed with USN needs in mind. Both types may still win other significant orders worldwide. Bonne chance
Well according to the article already posted here the Indians were shown a Captor AESA radar. See my notes about this in the Eurofighter Typhoon News thread. Btw the Selex info on Captor-E in their brochure is meanwhile outdated and in fact pre-dates the official FSD start. Captor-E will definitely come with the repositioner/swashplate antenna.
Scorpion82I indeed lost most of my optimism for the programme given the constant delays and cancellations, albeit hope dies last. I ever was of the impression that the Typhoon has a good potential to evolve into a decent swing-role/multirole platform, not the best on all fronts but certainly not the worst either. I personally think it’s somewhat ill conceived to measure the programme progress on the base of the number of weapon options. If one takes into account the significant hardware changes and software evolution the Typhoon went through from block 1 at entry into service to block 9 as it is now, with further improvements being on track (P1E). I think that once P1E is established the development of the “multirole” Typhoon will progress more rapidly and the requirements of the customers leave no doubt that the aircraft will eventually offer a decent level of flexibility, regardless of export orders from countries like India. When this happens remains yet to be seen, but there appears to be a plan and we’ll likely see smaller upgrades in the future rather than major block upgrades, albeit different block designations might still be used.
Another topic:
Eurofighter, too, test-flew a prototype AESA radar for the IAF evaluation team, convincing them it would be ready by 2014-15.
From here:
http://idrw.org/?p=1950#more-1950
This is actually interesting, I believe that it must have been done in the UK and probably with the BAC 1-11 radar trials aircraft and that they demonstrated the CAESAR for this purpose, just to showcase the basic performance potential and that they mastered all required key technologies, albeit CAESAR and Captor-E are not the same, in contrast to what a lot of people erroneously believe.
Scorpion82On the bellow picture you can see the Solange Celar anechoic chamber that was most certainly used for the testing of the Rafale.
The Mirage 2000 is a full scale model.
Check out the FoxThree vol.4 issue it contains an image of the Rafale in the anechoic chamber on the last page.
@Nicolas
And two of them are pretty much hidden behind the engine intakes from the front, and not much more exposed
Hmm, I don’t gonna speculate on the impact on the RCS, but those MICAs on the rear fuselage clearly stick out much more, particularly in comparison to those on the rear stations on the Typhoon’s fuselage.
Scorpion82Actually that’s what this thread is about 😀
Nic
Well then lets do it.
Why I think that the Rafale might be the better fit for the IAF
Note:
This reflects my view only, I don’t declare anything to be fact here!
The Mirage 2000 is one of the most important fighters in the IAF’s inventory and it has a quite good reputation among Indian aviators. France appears to have been proven a reliable partner so far, which is important for the Indians who don’t want to face operational restrictions as they did, with the US for example, following the nuclear weapon tests.
While the Mirage 2000 is a very different aircraft in comparison to the Rafale, thus there won’t be that much the two could share, India obviously considers France to be a relative reliable supplier of arms. As the Rafale and Mirage 2000 are both from the same manufacturer the logistical chain could be adapted more easily in order to support the Rafale in comparison to introduce a type from a different manufacturer. The necessary connections between the IAF and Dassault and its partners as suppliers exist. Of course there are some synergies, particularly with regards to the weapons which are likely to be introduced with the Mirage 2000 upgrade and as the IAF wants to keep its Mirage 2000 and the French may offer some favourable conditions for the upgrade deal, if the Rafale is selected, which might be lucrative for the Indians as they could kill two birds with one stone.
Thus the IAF might save money by selecting the Rafale, both directly (due a possibly better price for the M2k upgrade) as well as using the same weapon stocks for both types.
It has to be noted that India intends to sign the M2k upgrade prior it selects a MMRCA contender, thus it’s not entirely sure of how savings could be achieved afterwards.
From an operational point of view the IAFs combat aircraft fleet comprises a large number of different types, most of which are optimised for the air defence/air superiority roles. The IAF’s premier strikers/attackers are the vulnerable MiG-27 and Jaguar, with the Mirage 2000 being used for AG in a secondary role, like the Su-30MKI and as the Tejas and upgraded MiG-29 will be in the future. It is predictable that the MiG-27/29, Jaguar and Mirage 2000 will be retired somewhen between 2020 and 2025, thus leaving a gap which must be filled. The AMCA which might be slatted as a possible, albeit probably just partial replacement for these types won’t be available for quitre some time, thus the IAF needs an aircraft capable to perform both, air-air and air-ground missions reasonably well. The Rafale fits that bill being a versatile and capable multirole fighter (or omnirole;) ) and the aircraft can do this right now, thus there is no risk involved, meaning the IAF can count on that the aircraft will be able to perform the various roles from day one it will be delivered (literally spoken).
With the Tejas and Su-30MKI being primarily used for air defence/air superiority and the other major types currently operated being retired in the mid term, a medium fighter fitting in between the LCA and heavy Flanker should be ideally a platform not to close to either of the other two types wrt size/weight and complementary to their roles.
It remains yet to be seen at what price the Rafale and its competitor will be offered, how competitive their offset and ToT proposals are.
Scorpion82Well I’m a great admirer of the Rafale, it’s a great aeroplane and I think it’s one of the most advanced and capable combat aircraft in the world. It has its strengths and enjoys its advantages over other types, including the Typhoon. But nothing is perfect and it’s not like other types don’t offer any advantages at all. I try to look at things from a broader perspective as much as possible and don’t take it the “mine is better than yours” way, which should be apparent if someone carefully reads my posts in this thread for example. You’ll realise that I have never insisted any “mine is better than yours” here at all. I usually represent the side I consider as under represented, at F-16.net as you have seen I’m often representing the Rafale as there aren’t many/if any other people who add some balance to the rather one sided perception of most users there. Heck I even defended the F-35 in another forum and other aircraft including various Russian and US types. And when I talk about “defending” I mean countering prejudices, false information and adding food for thought by pointing out physical/technical limitations (as far as my knowledge permits).
I encourage everyone to learn and built up his own mind, rather than adopting the view of someone else. It’s a learning and maturing process one has to go through and I had to learn this as well, sometimes the hard way.
That being said, I’m happy that the two European birds did make it to the short list and wish them both the best, albeit I don’t make a secret out of it that I hope the Typhoon will make the running, not necessarily because it’s the better fit for the IAF, but because it will be a boost to the programme which could give it the momentum it currently lacks. My bet is nonetheless on the Rafale on this one as I believe that it’s a better fit for the IAF for several reasons (could elaborate if there is the interest).
Scorpion82True BUT I am talking about a MSA and a PESA (Typhoon/Rafale) , not you ? :confused:
The discussion was related to the ECM antennas not the radar antennas. The discussion about the radars was wrt to frequency agility and I think we have settled this now.
I know for God sake ! 😡
Just to make things clear : the Rafale is also better equipped than the Typhoon regarding RWR/ESM . It is again about design , planned goals and NOT ABOUT who ‘s the best , for cry out loud ! 😡
Feel free to believe what you want, it’s not my intention to convince of something else or change your mind. I just provide some info you are obviously missing and give some food for thought.
I was talking about jamming and not anymore about RWRs . You didn ‘t see me turning left ? :rolleyes:
Maybe you should make it clear if you are changing the topic…
Prove it , because I can ‘t so far . DASS (Praetorian and the towed decoys) are generic systems .
Actually , the towed decoys could be fitted on any good ECM system .
The TRD could be used on other aircraft true, like the chaff dispensers. That doesn’t equate in the DASS being retrofit able. DASS has been specifically designed for the Typhoon with all the room, power supply, cooling and locations of the different sensors being designed in. You can’t just take the MAWS, LWR, ESM/ECM and retrofit it to another aircraft! It is a fully integrated system which is part of the design. If the Rafale would have a TRD it could be used on other aircraft as well, the question is about the integration with the rest of the suite. Rafale’s chaff dispensers are also used on the M2k (at least newer variants) if I’m not mistaken, that doesn’t make Spectra retrofitable either. Shape and size of the devices have been designed to meet the airframe and locations were well thought through, that makes it difficult if not impossible to either retrofit Spectra or DASS to another platform.
Sign In
